What you are doing is essentially dichotomizing faith and facts. As a Christian you allow for the possibility of miracles and acknowledge the reality of the superantural in selective instances and situations. But somehow when it comes to your understanding of evolution you jettison the supernatural and cling to a materialist presupposition. But then you try to "Christianize" your materialism by claiming that God used the processs of evolution to create man. As the nature of Our Lord is one - divine and human without separation or confusion - so the universe is both material and spiritual. If you can accept that Mystery transcends scientific attempts to discredit the Eucharist, then why can't you accept the possibility that mystery may transcend evolutionary explanations of human creation?

Good post Gebre, it is certainly more refreshing than a lot of the YEC Ive read.

What's in bold has made me pause and consider the following. So thanks for that.

quoting tags editted - MK

« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 05:22:12 AM by Michał Kalina »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Scientific studies like computer science and non-organic chemistry that conveniently don't need evolution to make sense.

You realize this isn't the random posts thread?

Seems pretty on topic to me.

Okay...let's stop right there. Just be straightforward. No need for snarky comments.

Kerdy, I disagree with your assertion of "many". Very few, if at all, disagree with evolution. Even one of the ring leaders of Intelligent Design, Dr. Michael Behe, who Johnson depended on in scientific terms of "irreducible complexity" actually does not disagree with the idea that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

If you place a percentage on what constitutes "many", perhaps. Otherwise, any number greater than "few" would be many. You will notice I avoided percentages, mainly because I don't know them, but I agree "most" agree with evolution, even without percentages. If you have 100,000 scientists and 12,000 disagree with evolution, that isn't very few. It's a lot of people, thus my usage of the word "many".

We have to define "scientist". This is besides the definition of "science" to begin with, and what defines as "science". If you are to, for instance, agree with the vast majority of scientists on how to define "science", then by all means, even a seriously believing Christian would reject Intelligent Design as "science" because this compromises the nature of God as "falsifiable" and "testable", which is blasphemy! But, entertaining the thought, if we were to take a statistical poll of scientists, and only ask those in life and earth sciences of their professional opinions, we find that according to Newsweek poll in 1987, 700 out of 480,000 give credence to creation science, which is only about .01% of that particular population. According to the National Center for Scientific Education, a 1991 gallup poll that included biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers showed only 5% saw credence to creation science.

It's only in high school biology where we find about 15-20% of biology teachers teaching creationism, according to a 2011 article. So here is where we have the dilemma.

So then, what is "many" and what is "scientist" seems to be quite relative in this issue. I think the best thing is this. If there are people serious about understanding where highly qualified biology and earth scientists are so overwhelmingly pro-evolution, one has to study what they study in depth, or at least read some of their "easy to read" books on the subject. Even I don't consider myself as expertise as these scientists who specialize particularly in it, but I've learned and read enough to be convinced (which I know is not saying much), and if I do subspecialize in clinical genetics, oncology, infectious disease, or immunology/allergist, perhaps this is where I will apply more of evolutionary knowledge in these situations.

1. God commanded the creatures to be "Fruitful and Multiply." However, as thousands of species, including countless microbes, insects, worms, rodents, etc. obeyed this command and reproduced unchecked (without physical death), the entire earth would soon be awash in a horrific mass of exponentially exploding populations. Indeed, considering the reproduction rates of many invertebrates alone (some producing thousands of offspring in a single generation), within days to weeks at most the Garden of Eden would become a veritable hell on earth. Peace and tranquillity would quickly be replaced with unimaginable overcrowding, pestilence and starvation. A bizarre paradox would also ensue. Soon animals would have no food to eat, nor space in which to live, and yet no ability to die. This is not only an absurdity and logical paradox, it is at direct odds with God's stated plan for a "good" creation.

Obligatory predators: Great White shark, scorpion, sabre-tooth Cat, rattlesnake, Widow spider, Lion's Jellyfish, 2. Obligatory carnivores present a serious problem for the "no physical death" positon. Many animals have extensive anatomic features that have little if any use except for capturing, killing, and eating other animals. Whereas some strict creationists assert that some apparent carnivores might have used their sharp claws and dagger-like teeth for grasping or shredding plants, in many cases the features in question seem far better suited, or only suited, for predation. For example, almost all spiders spin webs to capture prey and bear sharp fangs with poison glands to paralyze or kill their victims before devouring them. Likewise, jellyfish, sea anemones, and other Cnidarians have stinging tentacles and stinging cells. Such features are hardly needed for subduing plants. Many other animals have fangs, poison glands, stingers, or other specializations for stunning, capturing and/or eating prey. Numerous bat species have echo-location systems specifically tuned for small insect prey. Owls not only have talons, sharp beaks, and binocular vision well suited for predation, but also special feathers that allow for silent flight while hunting at night. Would they have originally launched stealth attacks on melons and apricots?

Among aquatic animals, obligatory predators include sharks, killer whales, barracudas, and piranhas, just to name a few. Even toothless whales have baleen structures for straining out millions of krill (mostly tiny crustaceans) with every mouthful of water. (Even if one imagined these whales originally fed on some kind of plants, countless small sea animals would inevitably be swallowed with the plants).

Even in the plant kingdom, some species such as sundews and Venus Fly Traps obtain much of their nutrition by trapping and digesting insects and other small animals. Some creationists have countered that perhaps many organisms were changed after the Fall--citing God's curse on the snake to thereafter crawl on its belly. But in many cases the creatures in question would have to be redesigned in such major ways (including the creation of new structures, not just reduction or elimination of old ones) that it would contradict another basic tenet of strict creationism: that God did all his creative work on the first six days, and thereafter rested. Jonathan Sarfati suggests that "since God foreknew the Fall, He programmed latent genetic information that would be switched on at the Fall." However, this raises some sticky theological arguments, and ignores the evidence discussed above that the Bible itself acknowledges the existence of carnivores before the Fall. Also, other problems arise: for example, without physical death the Fall would have been required the Fall to avert a catastrophic population explosion, meaning that humans would loose either way --a concept I doubt most thelogians would endorse.

As an aside, it is obvious that death for plants was part of the creation plan, since Genesis indicates that God gave creatures plant as food (but does not say only plants). While some animals only eat parts of some plants, in many other cases entire plants are routinely uprooted and eaten by a variety of animals. Clearly then, many plants died before the Fall. Some creationists assert that plants are not fully "alive" in the same sense that animals are alive, and therefore cannot "die." However, even if we disregard plants altogether, severe problems remain in a world without physcial death.

3. Many animals have defense mechanisms or structures to fend off predators. These include everything from sharp spikes and spines (as on porcupines and puffer fish) to highly offensive odors (skunks), to poisonous glands in their skin (various amphibians) to corrosive or toxic sprays (skunks, cobras, etc.) to protective armor (turtles, armadillos, etc). Some creatures employ more than one defense mechanism. For example, puffer fish not only have sharp spines, but can inflate their bodies to extend the spines when threatened or attacked.

Sea urchin, porcupine, puffer fish, skunk

Leaf insect and walking stickOther defense mechanisms include camouflage and mimicry, where creatures like cicadas and "walking sticks" often closely resemble parts of plants or other animals, in order to conceal themselves or repel predators. Poisonous animals are often brightly colored, as well, which evidently serves as a warning to predators. What would be the need for any of these defense systems if all creatures were herbivores? Ironically, strict creationists often cite the Bombardier beetle, which shoots a noxious chemical mixture at predators, as an example of a wonderfully designed creature. But again, what would be the purpose of such a defense system if there were no predators?

4. Animals routinely squash and inadvertently injest other organisms as they walk, eat, and carry out their daily activities. With every meal, even obligatory herbivores typically swallow a multitude of tiny animals such as aphids, mites, insect larva, etc, besides millions of microbes. Are we to assume that not a single elephant, cow, or rhino (let alone dinosaur) would ever accidentally ingest or step on a single ant, spider, or worm, or that God was continually rescuing millions of tiny animals from such fates? On a smaller scale, billions of bacteria and other microbes are continually reproducing and dying as part of the normal microecology of larger animals, within their digestive and disease fighting systems. Why would disease fighting systems even exist if no creatures could ever die?

5. Many animals (and humans) die every day from a variety of accidents (falling, choking, suffocating, etc). For this to never occur, we would have to assume that none of the originally created creatures were capable of errors in judgment, balance, movement, etc., or that God continually saved them from any accidental deaths. But there is no Biblical or scientific justification for these secondary assumptions. Indeed, Genesis says that the original Creation was "good," not perfect.[2] Only the latter would prevent accidental deaths.

6. Physical immortality would require a total cessation of all aging processes.[3] The problem is, as long as their were sunlight, background radiation, bacteria, etc. in the original creation, its hard to imagine how absolutely zero aging would occur, unless there was a continuous and perfect rejuvenation process. But again, God did not say the original creation was perfect, just good. Moreover, as already discussed without aging and death, the original creation could not stay "good" for very long, and would soon become unimaginably hellish with exponentially exploding population growth.

7. As noted by Glenn Morton, if creatures were meant to be immortal, there would be no need for reproduction. God could simply have created the optimal number of creatures of each kind, and they would have lived forever. Reproduction is thus tied to the cycle of life and death. Reproduction is needed to replace dying individuals. Death is also needed to avoid unchecked reproduction and its devastating results, as already discussed, and is ecologically important (point 8 below).

8. Death is ecologically important. It allows for the dissipation and recycling of nutrients in the environment. For example, when plants and animals die, their bodies are decomposed by other organisms (mostly microbes and fungi) which return nutrients to the earth, allowing plants to grow. Stop all death, and such cycles eventually stop, preventing plants from growing. Without plants, many animals which eat only plants cannot live. And yet if there is no death, then they cannot die, and we are left with another absurdity and paradox.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

I already answered this in the other thread. I am speaking here not to you (Kerdy) but to others who read your above statement.

Fwiw, so far as I understand it... through the mid-20th century people had this simplistic view of human evolution, in which there was one line of evolution that began with a primitive ape and eventually led to humans. What got them thinking in another direction is that they started to find bones from very different animals (some closer to human, some much further away) in the same strata and dated to the same time period. Once they realized that these animals coexisted they started to think that things were more like a tree or bush, than a single evolutionary path, not just for animals in general but even for the more recent human predecessors. As further evidence came in this tree/bush idea was proven to be correct. It didn't have anything to do with creationists asking things like "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" Though such questions were what I was poking fun at in my soup statement of course.

The funny thing about scientific theories is they are always proven correct...until someone proves their theory is actually correct...and the cycle repeats itself with none of the forerunners ever admitting they were wrong. My problem is, how can we be sure the next claim of accuracy is actually accurate and won't be changed again in a another few years? We can't, because it will, as history proves. If something is later proven wrong, it was never accurate or fact in the first place.

If they simply said, "Based on current evidence, the scientific community now believes..." I would have less of a problem.

If they simply said, "Based on current evidence, the scientific community now believes..." I would have less of a problem.

I guess they figured you'd have learned in grade school science class that ALL scientific findings and claims are tenable and never dogmatic.

Then they shouldn't make those claims. I did learn that. Now you understand why I dislike the modern approach to this stuff. You know, stuff like "people are born homosexual" without ANY proof to support the claim.

Scientific theories are supposed to be contingent, not permanent and dogmatic, and yet that is never how they are actually understood and internalized, either by scientists or laymen. If you say you don't believe in evolution, for example, that is technically correct from a scientific viewpoint, even for those who accept the validity of evolutionary theory. How can you believe in something and yet allow the possibility that it is false? This strange, conditional belief is highly unnatural to the human mind, however. We need to believe in things absolutely; we need the security of saying "this is true, that is false". So if you go around saying you don't believe in evolution, you will be ostracized as an anti-scientific fundamentalist, i.e. a heretic. Once science achieved its intellectual dominance, it was inevitable that it would turn into scientism; such is human nature.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 09:44:14 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

I'm not an ape and I know what was taught. Thanks though.

LOL...you're physiologically and genetically most similar to the chimp, gorilla, orangutan. God made us mammals, and especially "apes" with rational souls. That's just fact.

Sorry if that "offends" you.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 10:08:31 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

I'm not an ape and I know what was taught. Thanks though.

LOL...you're physiologically and genetically most similar to the chimp, gorilla, orangutan. God made us mammals, and especially "apes" with rational souls. That's just fact.

Sorry if that "offends" you.

A fact until another fact counters it. Then we ignore said fact was ever spoken. Gotcha.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

I'm not an ape and I know what was taught. Thanks though.

LOL...you're physiologically and genetically most similar to the chimp, gorilla, orangutan. God made us mammals, and especially "apes" with rational souls. That's just fact.

Sorry if that "offends" you.

A fact until another fact counters it. Then we ignore said fact was ever spoken. Gotcha.

It doesn't offend me anymore than Zeus. Neither are real.

there is no other fact...this is a medically and scientifically proven fact. whether you like it or not, sometimes the study of the chimp helps us understand and treat humans better. God is not a charlatan.

But sure...you can go ahead and be in denial if you want to.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

I think the insanity level of the evolutionary theory has gone up 3.25 points.

Perhaps I am missing it. What is so insane about that? That is what evolutionary theory has taught for years.

Not that many years. Up until about 20 years or so ago it was taught we evolve FROM apes. But, with apes still around, people began to question the accuracy of the theory and it changed to accommodate.

We are "apes" descended from "apes" and share a common ancestor with other "apes". Nothing changed...just your own interpretation and misunderstandings. Sometimes terminological differences become a source of semantical issues, as if "definitions changed", when in fact, it hasn't.

I'm not an ape and I know what was taught. Thanks though.

LOL...you're physiologically and genetically most similar to the chimp, gorilla, orangutan. God made us mammals, and especially "apes" with rational souls. That's just fact.

Sorry if that "offends" you.

A fact until another fact counters it. Then we ignore said fact was ever spoken. Gotcha.

It doesn't offend me anymore than Zeus. Neither are real.

there is no other fact...this is a medically and scientifically proven fact. whether you like it or not, sometimes the study of the chimp helps us understand and treat humans better. God is not a charlatan.

But sure...you can go ahead and be in denial if you want to.

I will thanks. Seen too many "facts" turn out to be false or outright lies. If it were proven I would agree, so apparently there is still an abundant amount of guessing going on.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 10:37:36 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice. I do deny evolution, entirely. The only fact is God created us in His image. All else is fantasy guess work and filling in gaps with puddy to make the puzzle prices fit together.

Evolutionary science is being conducted backwards. You are supposed to follow evidence to a conclusion, not create a conclusion and create the evidence you think could support it.

And you're right, I can't deny the proven fact because nothing has been proven to be fact. No need to deny something that doesn't exist. It's absence is all the proof you need.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 10:48:32 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

You are seriously too emotionally invested in this stuff. Tell you what, when you actually PROVE evolution, get back to me.

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

You are seriously too emotionally invested in this stuff. Tell you what, when you actually PROVE evolution, get back to me.

I just said forget evolution...I'm emotionally invested in how we're completely talking past each other right now.

Get off your high horse and actually read what I am telling you.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 10:55:09 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 11:06:32 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I was born from my mother...I share a common ancestor with my sister. Get the difference in terminology?

Let's take this further. I am a descendant of some Egyptian 100 years ago. I have a common ancestor with my 10th cousin 4th removed.

That's the vocabulary evolutionists use. I'm not using this as "proof". I'm just giving you an analogy to help you understand how evolutionists think. God forbid Kerdy sees this post and says "SEE...YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION!!!" I'm done trying. I'm just helping you better understand evolutionists so you can make a well-informed argument or discussion.

And you're using the word "trees" is a form of ridicule. It's like an atheist coming to us and say, "look at these cannibals eating the Eucharist".

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 11:15:08 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

In a murder case, one gathers evidence from a crime scene and makes the most logical conclusion based on the evidence. One does not say "this person did it" and then try to find evidence to support such claims.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

In a murder case...

Do you know how to read english?

Let's say I found a random bottle on the floor where there's NO MURDER and NO CRIME but an innocent fingerprint...now reread what I wrote

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 11:28:43 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

You are seriously too emotionally invested in this stuff. Tell you what, when you actually PROVE evolution, get back to me.

I just said forget evolution...I'm emotionally invested in how we're completely talking past each other right now.

Get off your high horse and actually read what I am telling you.

Let’s see. I have eyes, a skeletal system, breathe oxygen, eat carbon based foods, classified as a mammal, an intelligent “species”, have a digestive system, and…oh no! I descended from dolphins, no wait, whales, wait…whales evolved from bear when they exited the water and grew legs just so they could return to the water without legs and…ah crap!

Let’s try it again with birds. Birds descended from dinosaurs and we know this because as mammals were becoming more predominate, smaller dinos developed feathers and later wings so they could fly. This explains the T-Rex’s super great grandpa who had feathered wings and…er, wait, that’s kind of our of order…ah, crap!

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

What? Forget about the murder case? Alrighty then.

And what exactly does the latent print match too? See, already filling in the blanks. Not to mention this hasn't even gone to the prosecutor much less a defense attorney. You prove my point for me. Jumping too far too fast without proof of anything other than there is a dead body. How about we identify the dead body, collect the evidence and determine if it was even a homicide BEFORE we do anything else. The print could be the victims.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

In a murder case...

Do you know how to read english?

Let's say I found a random bottle on the floor where there's NO MURDER and NO CRIME but an innocent fingerprint...now reread what I wrote

So all you can prove is that the fingerprint existed. The intent of evolutionism/creationism is to figure out how the fingerprint got there in the first place, which is not something which you can easily use in an analogy such as the case you are giving and accurately portray the theories of either side, at least without making ones brain go numb, which I am not willing to do at 23:00 o'clock.

I was born from my mother...I share a common ancestor with my sister. Get the difference in terminology?

Let's take this further. I am a descendant of some Egyptian 100 years ago. I have a common ancestor with my 10th cousin 4th removed.

That's the vocabulary evolutionists use. I'm not using this as "proof". I'm just giving you an analogy to help you understand how evolutionists think. God forbid Kerdy sees this post and says "SEE...YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION!!!" I'm done trying. I'm just helping you better understand evolutionists so you can make a well-informed argument or discussion.

And you're using the word "trees" is a form of ridicule. It's like an atheist coming to us and say, "look at these cannibals eating the Eucharist".

I understand relation in the manner you describe. We all are descendants of Adam and Eve. Even science has shown the human race originated from a specific female and the geographical area, which coincides with the scriptures.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

In a murder case, one gathers evidence from a crime scene and makes the most logical conclusion based on the evidence. One does not say "this person did it" and then try to find evidence to support such claims.

Take away evolution. Deny that all you want. But you CANNOT deny the PROVEN FACT that we are genetically, anatomically, embryologically, physiologically, biochemically almost identical with apes. I'm not saying intellectually, as we have that unique characteristic, but physically...we are in fact apes.

We are not apes. We are almost as "closely related" to rats and mice.

It's like I'm talking Chinese

Tell you what...how about you slice open a chimp body and then look at a human cadaver. Then look at a rat and mouse. Get back to me with the "conclusion".

Just because you find a fingerprint at the crime scene of a murder doesn't mean that person is guilty. You actually have to prove it beyond doubt.

Ya...you're absolutely right. I'm not saying that because there's a fingerprint that the person is guilty. RIGHT NOW, I'm saying that the fingerprint belongs to the person. FORGET ABOUT MURDER CASE...look at how the fingerprint matches. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. Both the defense and prosecutor can agree to that.

In a murder case...

Do you know how to read english?

Let's say I found a random bottle on the floor where there's NO MURDER and NO CRIME but an innocent fingerprint...now reread what I wrote

This makes no sense. What is the end goal here? What is our interest in the bottle and the latent print left behind? What are we attempting to decipher here?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The amount of misconception about evolution on here is rather depressing. It is one thing to disagree with the current scientific understanding of it, but to put up continual strawmen just to knock them down shows no real desire in understanding the framework by which scientists operate.

The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

The point is I'm not even talking about evolution. That's the point the point of saying forget about the murder case. But for some reason, I'm just not making sense anymore. So I honestly give up on the amount of stupidity I'm dealing with here.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The point is I'm not even talking about evolution. That's the point the point of saying forget about the murder case. But for some reason, I'm just not making sense anymore. So I honestly give up on the amount of stupidity I'm dealing with here.

We are stupid because you were unable to make your point? Weird.

I think you are upset because real life doesn't function in the same way as your theory and that frustrates you.